Ratzinger, Habermas, and Pera on Public Reason and Religion

Abstract

Ratzinger, Habermas, and Pera on Public Reason and Religion Peter J. Colosi (bio) Introduction:1 Among contemporary scholar atheists and agnostics, there are these two distinct types: (1) Those who think religion is the cause of all evil in the world and who assert that it ought to be eradicated so as to bring about their version of utopia, and (2) those who perceive that the world is going terribly off track and wonder whether religion after all does have something to offer with respect to how we structure our common life together.2 This article explores a conversation between that second type of atheist or agnostic and people of faith, in particular on the question of public policy and the common good. Before becoming pope, Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI collaborated on book projects with Jürgen Habermas,3 an atheist, and Marcello Pera,4 an agnostic,5 on questions pertaining to the foundations of morality and the common good. Habermas, who once held a Rawlsian view with respect to religious voices in the public square, has changed his position,6 stating that, “The liberal state has an interest of its own in unleashing religious voices in the public sphere, for it cannot know whether secular society would not [End Page 148] otherwise cut itself off from key resources for the creation of meaning and identity.”7 Marcello Pera has expressed a similar position, to be discussed below. While both men are calling for religious voices in the public sphere, they differ in that Habermas speaks of religion in general,8 while Pera refers specifically to the Christian roots of Europe. This new openness of some high profile atheists and agnostics to religious voices in the public sphere combined with the West’s rejection of its moral heritage and historical roots has led Joseph Ratzinger to the following suggestion, In the age of the Enlightenment, the attempt was made to understand and define the essential norms of morality by saying that these would be valid etsi Deus non daretur, even if God did not exist. … We must … reverse the axiom of the Enlightenment and say: Even one who does not succeed in finding the path to accepting the existence of God ought nevertheless to try to live and to direct his life veluti si Deus daretur, as if God did indeed exist.9 Axiom 1: Its Meaning and Consequences Axiom 1 represents the Enlightenment view that the norms of traditional morality remain true even if God did not exist, “etsi Deus non daretur.” It can be explained as follows. Immanuel Kant, in his time, was deeply concerned about the loss of morality that would ensue from his position on the unknowability of: God’s existence; free will; and the immortality of the soul. Thus, Kant decided to accept these as postulates of practical reason (i.e., ethics). He did this in order that morality would not fall apart, which he thought would inevitably happen if people actually rejected God, free will, and immortality when building their ethical views.10 Marcello Pera expresses this by saying that Kant, and also Galileo, were trying to keep what “is and as such can be verified scientifically” together with what “ought to be and which is based on sources that are not scientific or rational [End Page 149] (customs, beliefs, faith).”11 Kant and Galileo wanted to promote traditional morality even if God could not be known or proven to exist. Another way to put the point would be: Since God, freedom, and immortality are not scientifically or empirically verifiable, Kant and Galileo excluded them from the realm of the knowable, yet at the same time they wanted to retain the moral vision that depends on God, freedom, and immortality. Pera then notes, “The solution thought out by Kant did not succeed … because once it had taken hold the logic of separation [of scientific knowledge from faith/morality] was more powerful than the logic of unification.”12 I concur with the view of Ratzinger and Pera that Kant’s goal was not the destruction of traditional morality, but rather its rescue. Granted, morality needed to be rescued from Kant’s very own...